Raymond
M. Krushin and Ulysses Hoffman (Plaintiffs), initiated this
pro se civil rights action regarding their prior
confinement at the State Correctional Institution, Waymart,
Pennsylvania (SCI-Waymart). Named as Defendants are
SCI-Waymart and various members of the prison staff.

The
motion similarly asserts that in the nine months preceding
the initiation of this action Plaintiffs were denied adequate
medical treatment for “parasitic conditions”
which caused them to suffer non-stop itching, a rash, and
open sores.

As
relief, they seek outside medical consultations.

II.
DISCUSSION

Preliminary
injunctive relief is extraordinary in nature, and is
discretionary with the trial judge. Orson, Inc. v.
Miramax Film Corp., 836 F.Supp. 309, 311 (E.D. Pa. 1993)
(citing Skehan v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State
College, 353 F.Supp. 542 (M.D. Pa. 1973)). In
determining whether to grant a motion seeking preliminary
injunctive relief, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit has instructed that courts should consider the
following four factors: (1) the likelihood that the applicant
will prevail on the merits; (2) the extent to which the
movant is being irreparably harmed by the challenged conduct;
(3) the extent to which the non-moving party will suffer
irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is issued; and
(4) whether granting preliminary injunctive relief will be in
the public interest. S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube
Int'l, Inc., 968 F.2d 371, 374 (3d Cir. 1992)
(citing Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson &
Co., 903 F.2d 186, 197-98 (3d Cir. 1990)); Instant
Air Freight v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 800
(3d Cir. 1989); Premier Dental Prods. Co. v. Darby Dental
Supply Co.,794 F.2d 850, 852 (3d Cir. 1986). It is the
moving party who bears the burden of demonstrating these
factors. See Dorfman v. Moorhous, No. Civ. A.
93-6120, 1993 WL 483166, at *1 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 24, 1993).

Perhaps
the most important prerequisite for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction is a demonstration that, if it is not
granted, the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm
before a decision on the merits can be rendered.
Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614
F.2d 351, 356 (3d Cir. 1980). The Third Circuit has defined
irreparable injury as “potential harm which cannot be
redressed by a legal or equitable remedy following a
trial.” Instant Air Freight, 882 F.2d at 801.
A court may not grant preliminary injunctive relief unless
“[t]he preliminary injunction [is] the only way of
protecting the plaintiff from harm.” Id.

The
relevant inquiry is whether the party moving for the
injunctive relief is in danger of suffering the irreparable
harm at the time the preliminary injunction is to be issued.
SI Handling Sys., Inc. v. Heisley, 753 F.2d 1244,
1264 (3d Cir. 1985). Speculative injury does not constitute a
showing of irreparable harm. Continental, 614 F.2d
at 359; see also Public Serv. Co. v. West Newbury,
835 F.2d 380, 383 (1st Cir. 1987). The possibility that
adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be
available at a later date, in the ordinary course of
litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable
harm.” Instant Air Freight, 882 F.2d at 801
(quoting Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1964)).

A.
Krushin

The
adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon “the
continuing existence of a live and acute
controversy.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S.
452, 459 (1974) (emphasis in original). “The rule in
federal cases is that an actual controversy must be extant at
all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is
filed.” Id. at n.10 (citations omitted).
“Past exposure to illegal conduct is insufficient to
sustain a present case or controversy regarding injunctive
relief if unaccompanied by continuing, present adverse
effects.” Rosenberg v. Meese, 622 F.Supp.
1451, 1462 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing O'Shea v.
Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974); see also
Gaeta v. Gerlinski, Civil No. 3:CV-02-465, slip op. at
p. 2 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2002) (Vanaskie, C.J.). Furthermore,
an inmate's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief
fails to present a case or controversy once the inmate has
been transferred. Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169,
1173 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted); see also Carter
v. Thompson, 808 F.Supp. 1548, 1555 (M.D. Fla. 1992).

Shortly
after the filing of this action, Plaintiff Krushin notified
this Court that he had been released and was residing at a
substance abuse treatment center. See Doc. 12.
Thereafter, Krushin informed the Court that he had violated
his parole and was currently housed at the State Correctional
Institution, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. See Doc. 34.
There is no indication that Krushin will be returned to
SCI-Waymart in the near future.

In
light of Plaintiff Krushin's departure from SCI-Waymart,
he is no longer subject to the alleged lack of adequate
medical care at that prison. Therefore, Krushin's request
for preliminary injunctive relief is subject to dismissal on
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.